Helpdesk

Dear Drugs-Forum readers: We are a small non-profit that runs one of the most read drug information & addiction help websites in the world. We serve over 4 million readers per month, and have costs like all popular websites: servers, hosting, licenses and software. To protect our independence we do not run ads. We take no government funds. We run on donations which average $25. If everyone reading this would donate $5 then this fund raiser would be done in an hour. If Drugs-Forum is useful to you, take one minute to keep it online another year by donating whatever you can today. Donations are currently not sufficient to pay our bills and keep the site up. Your help is most welcome. Thank you.

Does anyone else see an uprise in IV use coming after this? I mean if they are going to swab your mouth people with just start doing it other ways like plugging, IV, IM, snorting...whatever else they can do.

It takes an hour after smoking to test positive on a swab. Its not the residual smoke in your mouth.. It is metabolized no matter how you take it and ends up in saliva.

A breathalizer for THC,amphetamines, MDMA and all sorts of shit looks to be in the final stages of development ATM ..so its just a matter of time before that hits the streets and life gets a lot tougher for people who drive intoxicated

It goes without saying that anything that might discourage people from driving while high or stoned is, as far as it goes, a great thing. However I can easily imagine a case whereby a person who smoked half a spliff 24 hours previously and is completely sober has some sort of accident - whether due to their own bad judgement, weather conditions or even the actions of another driver - tests 'positive' for THC even though they have a pharmacologically insignificant amount in their system and gets a custodial sentence, whereas previously they might just get a fine and some points on their licence for dangerous driving.

I wonder if any kind of cut-off amount for each drug will be considered, like there is with alcohol, or if they'll just assumed you're 'high' if they can detect any quantity of any drug?

Edit: oh right, that's a bit more reasonable than the 36hrs mentioned above.

I found a very informative chart yesterday that breaks down detection times by detection type, consumption and other factors .. When I get to my laptop I need to edit out a URL on it and I will post it.. It cites redwood and all of the big labs.

Anyway the window for swab is an hour after consumption you will test positive up until 12 hours after consumption when you will test negative. So the window is not quite as big as one may think.

On a Saliva Drug Test, THC will test positive within one hour of use, but may only show positive for about 12 hours after last use.

They've had this available in Australia for 10 years or so, apparently. These swabs seem to be testing for higher levels, & thus more recent use. They seem to work pretty well.

The "roadside swabs" are different from the oral swabs/saliva testing we already have available in the USA as a urine-based drug screen alternative. I get oral swab-based testing at the methadone clinic, and they have to send the swabs to a lab for analysis. The roadside swabs remind me of pregnancy tests, only using saliva instead of urine. *lol* They give you results quickly.

If they can get the testing threshold correct so that it really only catches usage recent enough to affect your motor skills & judgment at the time of testing, I'm *ALL* for it.